Trust not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of Consumer Courts

Mar
17
2017


Supreme Court in the matter of Pratibha Pratisthan Vs Manager, Canara Bank; Civil Appeal no. 3560/2008 vide judgement dated 7th March, 2017 held A reading of the definition of the words 'complaint', 'complainant' and 'consumer' makes it clear that a Trust cannot invoke the provisions of the Act in respect of any allegation on the basis of which a complaint could be made. 




Deficiency in service on part of the Bank when title deeds under their custody are lost #legalupdates

Mar
2
2017


In a case, before the National Commission, Bank took a stand that document had been 'misplaced', there shall still be a possibility that, document could be recovered at a later stage and returned to complainant. However, if Bank had intimated to the complainant that, documents had been "lost", cause of action would have started from date of receiving said intimation. In present case, therefore, it is established beyond doubt that since Bank has been taking the stand that, document was 'misplaced', cause of action had not accrued to complainant all these years, and hence, complaint filed by them cannot be stated to be beyond limitation in terms of Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Secretary/Manager, Mayyanad Regional Co-Operative Bank v. Ebrahimkutty




Remedies under Consumer Protection Act are in addition of other provisions for addressing grievances

Feb
11
2017


NCDRC in the matter titled as Western Railway Vs Vinod Sharma First appeal no. 451/2015 decided on 18th January, 2017 has held notwithstanding provisions of Railways Act, 1989 and availability of Railways Claims Tribunal Act 1987, consumer Courts will have the power to adjudicate upon the consumer issues with regard to Railway passengers. It was observed that Consumer Protection Act is a special legislation, enacted to provide better protection for the interest of the consumers in diverse areas.




Insurance Company not liable if the keys of vehicle are left inside the Vehicle

Feb
11
2017


NCDRC (National Commission) in the matter of Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd First Appeal no. 1060/2016 decided on 19th January, 2017 has held that Insurance company would not be liable to pay insured amount to the Claimant, where the keys of the vehicles are left inside the ignition socket as this amount to grave negligence on the part of the claimant.




A second complaint to the District Forum is maintainable when the first complaint was dismissed for default #indianlaws

Jan
31
2016


There is no provision parallel to the provision contained in Order 9 Rule 9(1) Code of Civil Procedure which contains a prohibition that if a suit is dismissed in default of the Plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 8, a second suit on the same cause of action would not lie, in the Consumer Protection Act. That being so, the rule of prohibition contained in Order 9 Rule 9(1) Code of Civil Procedure cannot be extended to the proceedings before the District Forum or the State Commission. Therefore, it would be permissible to file a second complaint explaining why the earlier complaint could not be pursued and was dismissed in default.

 




In a Contract of Insurance, Parties (insurer/insured) can themselves decide on benefits #indianlaws

Jan
20
2016


A contract of insurance is one of the species of commercial transaction between the insurer and insured. It is for the parties (insurer/insured) to decide as to what type of insurance they intend to do to secure safety of the goods and how much premium the insured wish to pay to secure insurance of their goods as provided in the tariff. If the insured pays additional premium to the insurer to secure more safety and coverage of their insured goods, it is permissible for them to do so. Rule of contra proferentum applies only when there is ambiguity in the policy. This rule becomes operative where the words are truly ambiguous; it is a rule for resolving ambiguity and it cannot be invoked with a view to creating a doubt.




Time to file reply to consumer complaint not later than 45 days from the receipt of notice #indianlaws

Dec
9
2015


The Supreme Court held that the District Forum can grant a further period of 15 days in addition to the 30 days (from the date of notice) provided for in section 13 of the Act to the opposite party for filing his version or reply and not beyond that. It was held that the view expressed by the three Judge Bench of this Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC 635] would prevail as the judgment delivered in this case holds the field. .Supre




Who would be a consumer for the Real Estate Transactions?

Feb
22
2015


Mere submission of an application for allotment of a house, which does not result either in allotment or registration and consequent inclusion in the awaiting list for such an allotment, does not confer upon him the status of a 'consumer' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act.




Mere proof of “unfair trade practice” is not enough to seek punitive damages unless causing of loss is also established

Nov
3
2014


Mere proof of “unfair trade practice” is not enough for claim or award of relief unless causing of loss is also established. Punitive damages are awarded against a conscious wrong doing unrelated to the actual loss suffered. Such a claim has to be specially pleaded.




Mere appointment of a contractor or employee does not Absolve Corporation from its statutory duties #indianlaws

Sep
24
2014


It was held by the Supreme Court held a Corpoation who grants the boating rights to contractor would continue to be liable to suprevise the boating activities and pay for the loss of life during boating.




Condition of pre-deposit for entertaining appeal has no nexus with the order of stay #indianlaws

Jul
22
2014


 A pre-deposit condition to deposit the amount being condition precedent for entertaining appeal, has no nexus with the order of stay, as such an order may or may not be passed by the National Commission. Condition of pre-deposit is to avoid frivolous appeals




A Consumer Court has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint seeking specific performance of agreement.

Sep
26
2013


A Consumer Court has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint seeking specific performance of agreement. The jurisdiction rest with the Civil Court only.




Government Servant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the purposes of claims pertaining to retiring benefits

Jul
15
2013


Whether Government Servant fall under the definition of a “consumer” and thus entitled to claim his retiral benefits due under his service conditions and regulations.








© 2010-15